Preface to the PamphletWorkers on the Split in the Party

Published:First published in 1905 in a pamphlet issued by the central committee of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party.

      Published according to the text of the pamphlet.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1972,

      Moscow,Volume 9,

      pages163-168.Translated:The Late Abraham Fineberg and Julius KatzerTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

When,inProletary(No. 8), we promised to publish in full a letter
signed “A Worker, One of Many”, we had no idea who he was. We do
know that the ideas expressed by him are really shared by many workers, and this
was sufficient reason for us to decide to publish his letter. Now we learn fromIskra, No. 105 that the author of the letter “formerly considered
himself one of the Minority”, that “he had for a long time past been
a bitter enemy of the so-called Majority”. So much the better. So much
more valuable to us is this former Menshevik’s admission that
well-meant intentions as to “proletarian initiative” were
just so many “fine
words”; so much more precious is his outright condemnation of the
intellectual’s “Manilovism”.[2]This is an indubitable
sign that the Mensheviks’ demagogy, their indiscriminate promises of boons of
every description—autonomy, initiative, democracy, etc.—are, as
should have been expected, beginning to weary class-conscious workers and evoke
their legitimate distrust and criticism.

Anotherhighly characteristic fact, and one which we are sure will turn many
more Menshevik workers into “former Mensheviks”, is thatIskrahas seen in this letter from “Worker” a “fist
from below”! This is a fact that is very much worth considering.

Whathas a “fist” to do with it anyway? Does this “dreadful
word”, which the Mensheviks have worked almost to death, denote certain
definite organisational concepts, or does it simply express the intellectual’s
annoyance at, or outburst against, any strong organisation which would hold
intellectual caprices in check?

Whatdoes the author of the letter want? He wants the split to be closed. DoesIskrasympathise with this aim? Yes, it states so plainly. Does it
    consider that this can be achieved right now? Yes, it does, for it declares:
    “Differences (in tactics) are not so great as to justify a split.”

Thatbeing the case, why doesIskraagain bring up the tactical
differences in its reply to “Worker”, mentioning even the
“Plan of the Zemstvo Campaign” which was buried in theIskrabulletins published “for Party members only” and in
Plekhanov’s “confidential” pamphlet? What is the point of this?
“Worker” does not deny the necessity of polemics and disputes, nor
do the Bolsheviks deny it! And the Party Rules adopted at the Third Congress
clearly establish the right of every committee to publish literature. After all,
the question revolves around what should be done for tactical disagreements not
to lead to a split, i.e., to a break in the organisational ties. Why then doesIskra evadethis clearly presented question, by dragging in irrelevant
arguments about tactical differences? Is it not, perhaps, because
“Worker” would rule out any irrelevant chatter that they speak of
his “fist”?

Amere desire to put an end to the split is not sufficient to end it. It is
necessary to knowhowto do it. Putting an end to the split means
merging in asingleorganisation. And whoever really wants to bring the
split speedily to an end must not confine himself to complaints,
reproaches, recriminations, exclamations, and declamations about the
split (as is done by
“Worker” and also by Plekhanov, for instance, since he has found
himself in the Marsh)—he must immediately startdevelopingthe
type of that common and united organisation.

Theweak point in the letter from “Worker” is that the author merelybewailsthe split, but makes no definite proposals forspecificorganisational measures to close it. In stead of remedying
this defect,Iskra aggravatesit by yelling in “panic”:
“A fist I”, at the mereideavoiced by “Worker”
concerning obligatory recognition of common organisational rules!! The split is
not justified by the differences, says “Worker”. That is true,Iskraagrees. This, “Worker” continues, means that it is
now necessary to spin a rope so strong (fie, for shame! What grossly mechanical
terms I am using!What a “fistic” idea! But bear up a moment, comrades ofIskra, don’t fall into a swoon at the idea of “nooses” and other such
horrors!) that it would firmly bind both sections and keep them tied togetherdespitetactical differences.

Inreply to thisIskrahas another fit of hysterics, and screams:
“A fist !"

We,on our part, say in reply: You are right, Comrade Worker! You reason in a
business-like way. A new, strong rope is needed. But go further, take the next
step: begin to considerwhat sortof rope this should be,what
exactly this commonorganisation, which is to beobligatory(help!
the “fist” again!) upon both sections, should be like.

ComradeWorker did not go farenoughin specifying hisorganisationalproposals (because the question of closing the split is
an exclusively organisational question,provided both sidesacknowledge
that tactical differences do not justify a split!);Iskra, however,
finds that he went too far, so far, indeed, that it has again raised the cry
about a fist!!

Oncemore we ask our readers: In point of fact, what is the real meaning of this
notorious “fist”, which, one might say, is scaring the newIskraout of its wits? Does this fist express any definite
organisational ideas, or is it merely the intellectual’s blind and ridiculous
fear ofany kindof “ties” imposed by any organisation that
isobligatoryupon all members of the Party?

Weleave it to the class-conscious workers to decide this question for
themselves, and shall proceed.

Thereal difficulty in a merger, assuming both sides sincerely desire it, is the
following. In the first place, organisational standards, Party Rules absolutely
binding on all, should be laid down; secondly, all parallel, competing local and
central Party organisations and institutions should be merged.

Sofaronlythe Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. has attempted to solve
the first of these problems, by establishing rules providing constitutional
guarantees for the rights of any minority. The Third Congress has, so to say,
provided a place in the Party for every minority that accepts the Party
programme, tactics, and discipline of organisation. The Bolsheviks have taken
care to provide the Mensheviks as well with a definite place in a united
Party. We cannot saythe same of the Mensheviks: their rules provide for no constitutional
      guarantees whatever of the rights of any minority in the Party.

Itgoes without saying that no Bolshevik regards the Rules adopted by the Third
Congress as ideal or infallible. Whoever thinks the Rules have to be changed
should come forward with a draft of clear-cut amendments—this would be apractical steptowards closing the split; it would be some thing more
than mere complaints and recriminations.

Wemay, perhaps, be asked, why we have not ourselves started doing this with
regard to the Rules adopted by the “Conference”. Our answer is that
we have started to do so:

seeProletary, No. 6, “A Third Step

			       Back”.[1]We are
prepared to repeat thefundamental principles of
organisation, recognition of which is, in our opinion, necessary
for a merger:

1) Submission of the minority to the majority (not to be confused with the
   “Minority” and the “Majority” in quotation marks!
   Here we deal with the principle of Party organisation in general, not with
   the fusion of the “Minority” with the “Majority”,
   which we shall speak of later. It is possible, speaking in the abstract, to
   visualise the merger between an equal number of both “Mensheviks”
   and “Bolsheviks”, but even such a merger isimpossibleunless the submission of the minority to the majority is recognisedin
   principle and as obligatory).

2) The congress, i.e.,an assembly of elected
   delegates from all duly authorised organisations must be the Party’s supreme
   organ; moreover, any decision by these elected delegates must be final (this
   is the principle of democratic representation, as opposed to the principle of
   consultative conferences whose decisions are submitted to the organisations
   for endorsement, i.e., a plebiscite).

3) Elections to the Party’s central
   body (or bodies) must be by direct vote and must be held at a
   congress. Elections out side a congress, two-stage elections, etc., are
   impermissible.

4) All Party publications, both local and central, must be completely
   subordinate to both the Party Congress and the relevant central or local
   organisation of the Party. Existence of Party publications organisationally
   unconnected with the Party is impermissible.

5) There must be anabsolutely clear definition of what membership of the Party implies.

6) In like
manner, the rights of any Party minority must also be clearly defined in the
Party Rules.

Such,in our opinion, are the absolutely indispensable organisational
principles, without recognition of which no merger is possible. We should like to
hear the opinion of “A Worker, One of Many” in the matter, and, in
general, of all in favour of fusion.

Wemay be asked: What about the question of the committees’ attitude towards
provincial organisations? What about the elective principle? Our reply is that
no fundamental principles of organisation are involved in this matter, once the
absolute application of the elective principle is not suggested. That is
something the Mensheviks have not suggested. In conditions of political liberty
the elective principle will be necessary, but, for the present, even the Rules
adopted by the “Conference” have not introduced it for the
committees. One definition or another of the rights and powers of the provincial
organisations is not a question of principle (assuming, of course, that what is
said is actually carried out, that there is no indulgence in demagogy and merely
“fine words”). The Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. tried to give an exact
definition of what is meant by commit tees and provincial organisations, a
definition of the relations between them. Any proposals for certain changes,
amendments, or deletions would be quite calmly discussed by any Bolshevik. So
far as I am aware, there are no “intransigents” in our midst on any
point of the question, and the minutes of the Third Congress will bear out this
assertion.

Thenext and probably no less difficult question is how to merge all parallel
organisations. In conditions of political liberty this would be easy, since we
would have Party organisations with a certain number of definitely known
members. With a secret organisation it is different. Establishment of
membership is all the more difficult, the more lightly membership is sometimes
understood, and, the more often recourse is made to demagogy, to fictitious
enrolment in the Party of people who are not class-conscious. We think that the
comrades working on the spot and well acquainted with the state of affairs
should have the final say on how these difficulties are to be overcome. The
temporaryabsence of members of organisations, who are “on holiday” in prison,
      are in exile, or abroad, is another impediment that should be taken into
      account. Then there is, of course, the considerable difficulty of merging
      the central bodies. Without a single guiding centre, without a single
      central press organ, real unity of the Party is impossible. In this
      respect the question stands as follows: either the class-conscious
      workers, ignoring all plaints about fists, will succeed in forcing the
      actual minority in the Party to advocate their views, without
      disorganising the work, in the various bodies of the local committees, at
      conferences, congresses, meetings, etc.; or the class-conscious
      Social-Democratic workers will not be able to cope with this task at
      present (generally speaking, they will undoubtedly and inevitably manage
      to cope with it: this is vouched for by the entire labour movement of
      Russia)—and in that event only agreements, and not fusion, will be
      possible between rival centres and rival organs.

Inconclusion, we shall repeat: it is not by means of complaints and
accusations, not by forming new, third parties or groups, circles, etc. (similar
to the one Plekhanov has now founded with his new Party publishing
organisation[3]outside the Party), that Comrade Worker and those who
share his views must strive to achieve their aims. The formation of a third
party or new groups will only complicate and con fuse matters. Preparation of
concrete terms of fusion must be started: when all Party groups and
organisations, all class-conscious workers, set about this, they will
undoubtedly
be able to work out reasonable terms, and not only work them out, but force
the Party leaders (disregarding all plaints about fists) to submit to these
terms.

Inaddition to Comrade Worker’s letter we are publishing an Open Letter from the
Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. to the Organising Committee, as a first step
towards a practical solution of the problem of a possible closing of the split.

Editorial Board of “Proletary”

[1]See present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 544-54.—Ed.

[2]Manilovism—from Manilov, a character in
Gogol’sDead Souls, whose name has come to typify smug complacency,
empty and
 saccharine prattle, and pipe-dreaming.

[3]Lenin is referring toDnevnik Sotsial-Demokrata(Diary of
a Social Democrat)—a non-periodical organ published by
Plekhanov in Geneva from March 1905 till April 1912. In all, sixteen issues were
brought out, at considerable intervals. Publication was resumed in Petrograd in
1916, but only one issue appeared.

Inthe first eight issues (1905-06) Plekhanov advocated extremely Right-wing,
Menshevik and opportunist views, defended a bloc between Social-Democracy and
the liberal bourgeoisie, rejected the alliance of the proletariat and the
peasantry, and condemned the December insurrection.

InNos. 9-16 (1909-12) he came out against the Menshevik liquidators, who wanted
to disband underground party organisations. In the basic questions of
tactics, however, he remained on a Menshevik platform. In No. 1 for 1916,
Plekhanov’s social-chauvinist views found full expression.

Plekhanov’sopportunism and departure from revolutionary Marxism were roundly
criticised by Lenin.